More on the Supreme Court’s Prop. 8 order
November 20th, 2008, 10:44 am · 167 Comments · posted by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent
As we reported yesterday, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the lawsuits against Prop. 8. In order, which you can view here thanks to the Sacramento Bee, the court asked that the lawyers to argue these three issues:
*Whether Prop. 8 is an amendment or a revision;
*Whether Prop. 8 violates the separation of powers doctrine under the state constitution; and
*If Prop. 8 is upheld, what, if anything, should happen to gay marriages performed before the ban?
The order says the last of the legal paperwork must be filed by Jan. 21. The Bee reports that the court could hear oral arguments as early as March, which would mean a decision could come before June.
So, in other words, it’s going to be a little wait before we know the outcome. Pack a lunch.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Twice the majority has spoken and twice Prop. 8 has been approved.
Hiding behind the “violating our civil rights” arguement doesn’t hold water. There were candidates and ballot measures I voted on that didn’t make it. IThough I wasn’t happy with the outcome, I accept majority decision and support the process. Now maybe you should as well…
November 20th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
This is total BS for the CSC to even get involved in this action again.
Johnny,………..get your gun!!!.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
The religious right and the Mormons are not just trying to take away the rights of gays. Think about what their other objectives are. They would like to bring back prohibition. They don’t want hetrosexual couples living together unless they are married. They would like to reinstate the prohibition against interracial marrage. Take a look at Iran. There’s a country run by religon. That’s what we would have in the US if the christian right gets it way. They want to impose their views and beliefs on everyone.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Here we go again. CSC has no business entering into this. Prop 8 was undertaken in a legal manner and followed all prior legal cases.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
There is something that should be noted here that I have not seen talked about concerning Prop. 8. The “yes” people (and all those right-wing Christians) seem to think that marriage is a religious and “moral” issue (their morals, not mine). And to them personally that may be so. But they seem to forget, a marriage can take place anywhere, inside or outside a church, and without any religious overtones at all. We have set that up in the United States. That is why you can get married at the county clerks office, by a Sea Captain, or by some idiot who got some sort of credentials by mail (and yes, that is very possible!). No therefore logic dictates that, at least in this country, marriage has nothing to do with what so many religious-types would have you believe. One more point: Suppose a gay couple lives down the street from you. They are nice people who want the c same good life you do. Then they get married next week. HOW DOES THAT EFFECT YOU PERSONALLY FROM THE WEEK BEFORE? Is you marriage suddenly over? Of course not. Does the couple that went from living together to being married change the way you live your life? Nope! Does it cost you more tax money? Nope! In fact life will go on as it always has. Your little Christian children who see those tow men happily living together, will still see them happily living together. Except now when they ask a question, you can say, Yes, they are committed to each other just like your parents are. It may not be our way, but it is their way. We don’t intrude on their lives, and they don’t intrude on ours. They are neighbors. Live and let live. (Isn’t that a Biblical saying????)
November 20th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
This is because these people who are protesting do not know how to lose gracefully. They cry and whine until we all get bored of it. People have spoken so leave it be and move on with your lives. It’s all getting old and people are not listening to what’s right/wrong..because people voted and that is that.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Jennie. I think you should stick to Real Housewives of OC stories to comment on. You’re not very bright. You can’t make constitutional amendments that are based on religious beliefs in this country. The people who are protesting are asking the state Supreme Court to review this amendment to make sure it does not violate the US Constitution.
I realize you won’t know what I am talking about, but please, try to keep up. I’ll use small words for you. There was a vote in the 60’s to make racial discrimination in the housing market legal, and it passed with 2/3 of the vote. It was challenged, and overturned by the courts due to a violation of the US Constitution. Go read the Constitution.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Mike - Why should the Prop 8 opposition “accept the decision”? Should we accept it the same way the Prop 8 supporters accepted the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the gay marriage ban? Why didn’t the Prop 8 supporters “just accept” that decision. It sounds like you’re just afraid it will get overturned.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hey Mike, if it doesn’t hold water, why has it been overturned once already? I’m curious to read your response.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
NO MORE H8. Prop 8 is notw an internationally known symbol of hatred and intolerance. Way to go California!
November 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
there is no argument. if the courts attempt to overturn Prop 8, better overturn Obama while you’re at it.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
a minority forcing their beliefs on us, taking rights away from kids,-evey child deserves a mother and father
November 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Mandux - Yeah, that’s not hateful…just like all the other Prop 8 supporters try to tell everyone it’s not about hate.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Civil rights in this country come down to one thing. The government must look at every individual as genderless, colorless, moneyless beings. I am 100% in favor of that viewpoint. Marriage is not about an individual it is about 2 individuals entering into a legal contract. Our government imposes restrictions on these types of contracts all the time.
For that reason this is not a civil right. It is an expansion of a civil contract.
I for one do not feel that it should be expanded. Why not? Because same gender marriage does lessen the value of my marriage in the eyes of society. Look at the Netherlands. Their marriage rate has fallen since allowing same gender marriage. Why? Because those that are straight realize that by allowing same gender marriage to exist it lessens the signifigance of their marriage.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
johnadams — your attack on Jennie only demonstrates your lack of understanding on these issues. I’ll try to use “small” words for you — try to keep up. The CaSC is NOT reviewing Prop. 8 under the Federal Constitution. In fact, the No on 8 campaign is specifically asking people NOT to file suit in federal court raising federal constitutional issues. Why? Because Prop. 8 will likely be affirmed under the Federal Constitution. Cases interpreting the Federal Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution do not equate sexual orientation with race or gender. Sexual orientation is viewed under the general right of privacy, and laws that impact privacy rights are given much more latitude under the Federal Constitution (it’s called “rational basis” review, meaning the law just has to have some “rational” non-discriminatory basis) than laws that impact race or gender-based classes of people (which get “strict scrutiny” — a much tougher standard to satisfy, which requires a “compelling” state interest for laws that impact suspect classes).
Interracial marriage bans are a very different animal. Anti-miscegenation laws were part of a larger social and legal system of repression and violence (with roots in slavery). Any comparisons between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are superficial at best.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
technically jennie, people are listening and they’re called the supreme court.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
No on 8! I am just guessing that anyone who voted yes didnt really care it would affect their “friends” and their children. It doesnt shelter kids from anything, especially when kids of the people who voted yes are way more open minded
November 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Prop 22 was passed by voters and a judge ruled that it was unconstitutional due to the wording of the constitution. Prop 8 is not so much a law that bans gay marriage, but a proposition to “amend” the California Constitution so that the already passed prop 22 is no longer constitutionally illegal.
Prop 8 titile: Prop 8’s title: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. In black and white it says “amendment”.
Why is the court asking this? Can’t they read?
It sure would be funny if its not legal over a word that to most mean the same, but when it comes to the Constitution there’s a big difference and different procedures to follow for each.
Hahaha I hope you phobes get ruled out AGAIN!
The problem is that state constitutional amendments and revisions are very distinct from one another and the proper procedure to
November 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
LOL…compare racial to being gay…LOL that is so funny!!!!
November 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hell of a way to witness, Christians. Non-believers are just lining up to become ignorant bigots like you. Where do I go to get “saved”?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
…as if the sanctity of marriage will be ruined if gays are allowed to participate. puhlease, 50% of marriages fail already. i think the sanctity was lost a long time ago.
i want the H8 supporter’s children to grow up, think for themselves and know their parents are bigots. there’s a solid lesson for the classrooms.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
No one reads history anymore, such a shame, then you religious wackos would have realized you wasted your time and money.
Let us look back to the United States Supreme Court of the late 1960’s, the so called “Love Court”. Repeatedly many states in the South and a few in the Midwest continued to ban inter-racial marriages, this was expressed by the “Will of the Majority”. Well the majority were a bunch of racist, ignorant, hate filled people, and the court over turned all states ban’s concerning inter-racial marriage.
Who is going to stand up for a minority opinion if the people in the majority are brainwashed?
Aside from that what these states were doing were violating the constitutional right’s of American Citizens by denying them the right to marry who they please, and no one in society can discriminate against race, gender and because of this craziness caused by the Churches, soon sexual orientation will be added to that list.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
CSC is the reason why we have Prop 8. If they didn’t fix what is not broken, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
CSC, hands off please.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Discrimination is not up for a popular vote.
Besides changing the CA constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislator (CA Art 18 Sec 1).
A proposition only takes a few thousands signatures to get on the ballot.
CSC will void prop 8.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I love the agreement live and let live-gay marriage wouldn’t affect anyone else
It will be taken to the schools-teachers union already donates for this cause(against the will of many of us teachers)
are you telling me the lawsuits will stop-of course not-the next step it will have to be taught in schools-because it has to be if that is the diffenition of marriage
there is no tolerance on this side-this view is being pushed and will continue to be push-this lessens marriage-(main goal to have posterity) , not having a father and mother will further weaken marriage and hurt children-could you imagine a daughter having to discuss her first period with one of her two dads-there are all these unintended consequences and more that will have a great empact on society
November 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
BAM! You homophobic right wingers are going DOWN! You worded your stupid law wrong! It’s not an amendment idiots, it is a revision and that’s something that the Supreme Court takes very seriously when deciding on changes to the Constitution. MORONS, MORMONS; what’s the difference?!
Bwhaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
November 20th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
This is wierd…I am shocked that the left wing of this state (and this country) are complaining about the will of the people and about an issue that has now been twice voted on with the same result in CA. They never whine about such things. The last thing they would ever do is try and impose their unwanted and self righteous beliefs on the rest of the country. They always leave that for the religious right. Again, I am just really caught off guard by this. Sarcasm rules.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
wow gina, you are you full of hate…easy girl, calm down. the gays are the true haters!!!
November 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
As a Christian, I voted my conscience even though I know that Prop 8 is a constitutional issue that should have never appeared on the ballet. I also realize that Prop 8 will be overturned by the supreme Court as a matter of discrimination.
Those who think of voting to overrule or go against the Constitution in OK have a adolescent understanding of Democracy.
As a Christian I also KNOW that we are in the “end times’ and, therefore, things will only get worse. I’m not saying that we Christians should give up the “fight”, I’m merely saying that they must understand that things such as this are part-and-parcial of the “end times”.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
pbb… You never heard a Mormon say that. I’m LDS (Mormon) . Bring back the prohibition? Where did that come from? I don’t drink and I think DUIs are a bad thing but we believe in the law of the land. Have a drink (please don’t drive.) Hetrosexual couples living together (or homosexual couples) are free to do what they wish. Please don’t try to make me tell my kids it’s right. I believe if your mom and dad are married it’s probably a good thing. Broken famlies are hard on kids and if you won’t commit to your wife/husband your odds of having a lasting family are not good. My (white) daughter dated a very nice black man. I had no problem with that. ~where do you get your information do you just make this stuff up? Marriage was a relegious ordinance (between a man and a women) long before it was instituted by the state. If you want a new ordinance create one but don’t tell me I have to parctice it ‘your way’ in my church or teach it your way in schools ~ which dispite the anti 8 ads is exactly what happened in Mass.
John do you realise this is a change (ammendment or revision) to the state consitiution? If you are changing the state constitution you don’t need to worry about not violiating the state constitution. This has nothing to do with the US constitution as it is a State law not a federal law and that should be reviewed by the US Supreme Court not the 9 judges in Sacramento. The last time the judges struck it down was because they believed it violated the state constitution which is why we voted to change the state constitution.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
gina-case in point- name calling-shows a lack of tolerance for an opinion different than yours
November 20th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
how sad a period would have to be discussed with a man-that is taking rights from kids
November 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Kids rights are being ignored-it will really hurt them,
November 20th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Here is a nifty graph that illustrates this ‘debate’ perfectly.
http://graphjam.com/2008/11/19/song-chart-memes-consequences-of-gay-marriage/
November 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Manturd - for the record, I am not gay (yes, straight people can actually be in favor of gay marriage). Yes, and you are being real…you’re showing your true colors of the REAL bigot you are. Hey, I’m just being real too.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
badwolf,
That is a clever illustration of this debate but you could also make the arguement that the graph would look the same if it were entitled “Consequences if Gays are not Allowed to Marry”, right?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Manturd - I seriously think that you’ve got the issues that need to be dealt with. I mean, you’re so fixated on the “homosexual life”, it almost seems as if you’re grappling with the fact that you, yourself are struggling with the fact that you’re gay and just can’t accept. Don’t worry, though, I’ll defend your right to marry another man. As for the second part of your latest post…I have nothing. I mean, what is that?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
On a side not, I’d like to get this for all the right wingers out there…
http://www.stampandshout.com/shop/bumper-stickers/end-of-an-error.php
November 20th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
socalyard, your absolutely correct! Either way it will effect YOUR life in no way whatsoever.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Hey Gina … the ballot title and question were written was by Jerry Brown (FYI … he’s the attorney general of CA who also opposed the prop), not by Prop 8 supporters. It was worded such to bias the electorate against the measure. So much for elected officials staying neutral. Take the time to learn about the subject before you engage in the debate.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I don’t see how this hurts children as much as divorce does.
Why not outlaw divorce?
Overturning prop 8 is not about gays.
It is about protecting equal rights for all.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
The argument is that Prop 8 was not really an amendment, but a constitutional revision, which must be introduced to the electorate by the Constitutional Revision Commision. Because Prop 8 was qualified for the ballot through private citizens and the petition process, it is invalid.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“GET A LIFE BUDDY. You don’t know $hit about me. I’ll worry about my soul you worry about yours”
Wow for someone who says “Society is going down the fu%#$%^& drain” you sure arent helping, maybe the problem is people care to much about themselves, maybe thats why religion is an organized thing. Maybe the answer cant be found with a society of people all out for their own #1, themselves
November 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I actually agree with you, badwolf. That is why I voted no on 8. But my point is that you have all of these left wing haters attacking all of these right wingers for what? So that they can use the word spouse instead of domestic partner. Even the most perfect man alive and the second coming of Christ (Obama) has said that there is nothing wrong with aknowleging the difference between gay marriage and straight marriage. Even he believes that they should be defined differently. Just because people have a different point of view doesn’t mean that they are bigots and haters. I have had enough of these fanatics comparing themselves to Martin Luther King. It is insulting to him and to our intelligence.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I think any house of worship be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, whatever, the second they donate their money to a political cause, they should loose their tax exempt status. If the Mormon Church wants to be come a lobbyist organization, they should go to DC and setup shop with all the other scumbag lobbyists hijacking our country for special interest groups.
I am not gay but I am a Freedom Loving American, anytime I see discrimination, hatred, bigotry, well it ruins America for me, you religious wackos think what you doing is something noble?
No, you are ruining this county by denying the pursuit of happiness to a select group of people based on your antiquated belief system.
Gay people marrying has nothing to do with you people, you would never associate with gays, be seen with them or be friends with them, you would never invite them to your house, you would never do anything at all with them, sure as hell the gay people will never show up at your houses of worship….so what are you scared of?
I find it hilarious other people are so concerned what happens behind other people’s closed doors.
Are your lives that empty and boring that you have to interfere and disrupt the lives of your fellow citizens????
November 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
No worries, Manturd…I get a good laugh out of people like you preaching to everyone about “God’s teachings”. Hard to believe, but not everyone is a Christian and follows your laws. Who makes the rules for us to obey? Why do I have to follow laws based on Christian beliefs if I’m not a Christian? I’m not at all interested in knowing you, nor am I worried about your soul.
Oh, and I have another book you should read…it’s called Hooked on Phonics. “This life that God gaved us Is only borrowed.” Gaved? I rest my case.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
How can it be a revision if there is nothing in the constitution that talks about marriage. In order to revise something there has has to be something there in the first place. Of course it is an amendment. The definition of marriage was added (amendment).
November 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
These gay people are out of their minds. They cry and whine like babies and the only free speech & behavior that is acceptable to them is what comes out of their mouths. They want every excuse in the world to validate their behavior and mental state of being and the CSC has violated our majority rights and has imposed their beliefs on us and has trampled on democracy once again. I voted for ballot measures in the past that did not pass and I accepted them with grace and respect for the law, the majority and democracy. The sad thing is 3% of the population is gay and you gay people think the whole worlds gay… Get a fricken clue and grow up and crying and get out of the way of democracy.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Schools need to strengthen their civics lessons so that future voters will understand that supreme courts specifically are charged with ruling on constitutional questions — and it is a sacred and historic role of the courts to protect minority rights as enshrined in state and federal constitutions.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
The California Supreme Court could rule either way on whether Proposition 8 amounts to a constitutional revision, but the issue demands its attention. The court already has found that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right; now it has the opportunity to fulfill its constitutional obligations to guard against the tyranny of the majority and to ensure that elections do not become vehicles of repression.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Diemel
You never studied American Democracy and your ignorant statement shows it. The purpose of a democracy and checks and balances and the reasons we have a Senate and House is to ensure everyone is treated fairly, THE MINORITY in a DEMOCRACY has to be PROTECTED by the MAJORITY, and if that fails because the majority as in this case is brainwashed by Nazi sympathizers, the courts have to step in and PROTECT the rights of the MINORITY.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
According to the California high court, merriage is an equally basic right.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“Seashell, I won’t even comment.”
followed by.. a comment.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
The California court has indicated that the quality of the change matters, not just its length or breadth.
Gay-rights supporters, including the largest cities in the state and dozens of legislators, argue that by stripping a protected group of the right to marry, Proposition 8 nullifies the equal protection provisions of the U.S. and California constitutions.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional amendment in Colorado that would have forbidden all laws that protect civil rights for homosexuals. The ban violated the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment, the court wrote, by singling out one group to be denied the rights enjoyed by all others.
But there also are differences between the Colorado and California measures. In Colorado, gays and lesbians were denied legal protection against discrimination in housing, employment and other basics of life. The court cited the breadth and basic nature of these rights in its ruling, saying there could be no legitimate state interest in the measure, simply animosity toward one group; in contrast, same-sex marriage is both newer and narrower, though, according to the California high court, an equally basic right.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Seashell rules! Good one.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Mandux is the perfect Mantool of the chuch, spewing out garbage and lies, hoping just like the GOP if they repeat lies over and over they will stick, well they don’t.
Yes, there was a gay person in my house, a good friend of mine since freshmen year in high school, he came over with his husband and had dinner with me and my gf.
I know you prob just thew up your lunch reading that, straight people and homos eating together….my god, so scary!
November 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Warren wrote, “…to guard against the tyranny of the majority and to ensure that elections do not become vehicles of repression.”
We shouldn’t have elections then. We should just let the governement tell us how to run our lives. We have no right to say what is right or wrong. We are too stupid. Let’s just let the governement control our economy AND our beliefs.
Don’t you think this should have been debated before it makes it onto the ballot. Why wait until it’s been voted on? Only the left with their circular logic and naive ideological beliefs would wait until the people have spoken to voice their concerns over constututional legality. It just goes to show how self righteous they really are. They are completely SHOCKED that most people disagree with them.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I’m a married hetro with 3 kids. I’ve read all the comments from both sides of this issue. But, I still cannot understand what the “Yes” side issue is. Is it religious? Is it homophobic? What reason would someone have to want to interfere with the lives of other people who are doing nothing to harm them… can someone explain it - without the religious angles?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I just am amazed at all the people mud slinging on here. To Morning Rush - the problem with your arguement is that we are not intruding into the lives of the homosexuals that want to marry, they are intruding on us who h